|
|
Post by Clipper on Mar 29, 2010 16:21:25 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by bobbbiez on Mar 29, 2010 17:29:42 GMT -5
 Help me here, where does it state who profits more? 
|
|
|
|
Post by Swimmy on Mar 29, 2010 18:24:06 GMT -5
Do the math... $85 surcharge to state $150 fine to municipality. The fines almost always are more than the surcharge, rarely have I seen it the other way.
|
|
|
|
Post by stoney on Mar 29, 2010 18:33:27 GMT -5
He pulled a "coitus interuptus", huh?
Hahahahahahaha.... ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by corner on Mar 29, 2010 19:24:27 GMT -5
who pulled that?
|
|
|
|
Post by bobbbiez on Mar 29, 2010 21:49:25 GMT -5
Last Wednesday I sat in a meeting with some of our council people, members of UPD and the DA's office and that's where I got the figures I quoted. The question being researched is, if the city can issue "city traffic tickets" in order to receive more of a profit that the state gets from the traffic tickets issued now. Guess the question would be, since it's NYS Motor Vehicle Laws will the city be allowed to do it. 
|
|
|
|
Post by Clipper on Mar 29, 2010 23:34:58 GMT -5
Sounds like an excercise in futility to me. I doubt that the state will allow it to happen, and even if it were legal and the city started taking more than the present share from ticket revenue, the state would simply have to find a way to make up for that revenue and would shove it up our butts somewhere else. Government is going to get your money no matter which branch takes the biggest bite. They will keep taxing and assessing and pretty soon the tide turns and they are getting a bigger percentage than what we actually get to keep for ourselves.
|
|
|
|
Post by dgriffin on Mar 30, 2010 7:14:47 GMT -5
Corner,
1. since it is money that drives enforcement, how could that be used to clean up the streets?
Bonuses? Not more cops, but more pay for each arrest? Vigilantes? Seriously, something carefully designed might work.
2.sounds like early release is the culprit in regards to the discussion about why we keep seeing the same old perps in the newspaper. Is that right? And it makes sense that it's a transfer of expense from state to locality. Could that be changed by legislation? And what do you think of the move to lessen prosecution of so-called victim-less crime (essentially drug activity)? Will it be just be another way to save incarceration expense and allow trash control of the streets?
|
|
|
|
Post by stoney on Mar 30, 2010 10:46:14 GMT -5
The sheriff did, when he pulled out of the drug task force... (Don't mind me, I've got a strange sense of humor) |
|
|
|
Post by corner on Mar 30, 2010 12:27:47 GMT -5
The sheriff did, when he pulled out of the drug task force... (Don't mind me, I've got a strange sense of humor) ive noticed dave as for your question truth in sentencing has to be the answer and the ability to shorten a courts sentence for any reason other than proff of innosence as in the barnes case must be taken away from the department of corrections, afive to 10 year sentence should be just that you do the minimum of 5 before you can even be considered for release to parole, there should be no shortening of sent for early release because you can behave in jail or first time felon or anyother crazy reason used to cover the fact that the commissioner of corrections puts prisoners on the street for solely economic reasons..and work release an other temprelease programs need to end as well,... |
|
|
|
Post by dgriffin on Mar 30, 2010 21:24:31 GMT -5
Corner, I see what you mean. The most intelligent phrase of the past ten (?) years came from a Democrat, surprised to say. "It's the economy, stupid." (James Carville, whose mind I like and think is a near genius, even if he a Democrat. ") ) It's always the money.
|
|
|
|
Post by wcup102 on Mar 31, 2010 22:12:45 GMT -5
Maybe I can shed some light on these issues.
First, despite what may be said about about "cost saving measures", "budgetary items", etc., about the pullout, us on the inside know different and see different. Thats all I am going to say, but it is not what they tell the media and what they are reporting. I will say it is mainly on the sheriff's dept. side.
Second, seizures, to my knowledge, are not disposed of until the case is disposed of, conviction or not. I do not know of any seizures that were kept after a not guilty verdict, if anything I think the stuff is returned. The DA's office uses several vehicles that they have siezed which saves on the cost of buying avehicle for their staff. They also use old patrol cars that are no longer used on the street but still have some life in them. Again saving money.
Thirdly, from what I have seen over the years, municipalities do not receive alot of return on the fines and surcharges. There is a formula used to determine what the municipality gets from my understanding. However, if an areest, ticket to summons issued using a city, town or village ordinance as a charge(i.e. open container, parking, etc.) the municipality retains the entire amount because it is a local law offense or violation. The state keeps the lions share of any other state law violation like speeding, stop sign violations, etc.
Hope this helps.
|
|
|
|
Post by bobbbiez on Mar 31, 2010 22:42:14 GMT -5
Thanks Wcup! Where the hell you been? Too much time on Facebook huh? 
|
|
|
|
Post by bobbbiez on Apr 1, 2010 10:08:48 GMT -5
US appeals court faults NY persistent felons law A federal appeals court said New York's law for imposing stiffer prison sentences on persistent offenders violates their constitutional rights. The Second Circuit US Court of Appeals panel is sending four cases back to lower courts to determine whether sentencing errors in each were harmless. Under the state statue, defendants convicted of two prior low-level felonies could be sentenced to 10 times longer for a third offense, up to 15 years to life in prison. The actual sentence is subject to judicial review of a defendant's history, character, the nature of the crime and the public interest. Citing a 2004 US Supreme Court ruling Wednesday, the three-judge panel said that gives to much discretion to the sentencing judge. This is why I stated the criminal has more rights then those they injure and why there is a revolving door on the prisons and all in the name of "constitutional rights." Exactly why I stated, "untie the laws of the law" and "be careful what you ask for." I can't say it any clearer. Once these criminals are caught it's up to the courts to keep them off the streets so we may be protected but are they doing it.....NO! They are continuing allowing these criminals back into society to do more damage to the innocent. Where are our constitutional rights protecting us from these repeated offenders? This is why I stated no matter where one lives we all have to stick together and fight to take our streets back. If not, sooner then later, we will all become victims. The public, all of us, should be outraged over this. I know I am and will be making phone calls to my legislators expressing my anger. Don't let me stand alone. |
|
|
|
Post by dgriffin on Apr 1, 2010 13:01:07 GMT -5
US appeals court faults NY persistent felons law A federal appeals court said New York's law for imposing stiffer prison sentences on persistent offenders violates their constitutional rights. The Second Circuit US Court of Appeals panel is sending four cases back to lower courts to determine whether sentencing errors in each were harmless. Under the state statue, defendants convicted of two prior low-level felonies could be sentenced to 10 times longer for a third offense, up to 15 years to life in prison. The actual sentence is subject to judicial review of a defendant's history, character, the nature of the crime and the public interest. Citing a 2004 US Supreme Court ruling Wednesday, the three-judge panel said that gives to much discretion to the sentencing judge. This is why I stated the criminal has more rights then those they injure and why there is a revolving door on the prisons and all in the name of "constitutional rights." Exactly why I stated, "untie the laws of the law" and "be careful what you ask for." I can't say it any clearer. Once these criminals are caught it's up to the courts to keep them off the streets so we may be protected but are they doing it.....NO! They are continuing allowing these criminals back into society to do more damage to the innocent. Where are our constitutional rights protecting us from these repeated offenders? This is why I stated no matter where one lives we all have to stick together and fight to take our streets back. If not, sooner then later, we will all become victims. The public, all of us, should be outraged over this. I know I am and will be making phone calls to my legislators expressing my anger. Don't let me stand alone. Bobbbiez, This may not be a great example of the courts trampling on normal citizens by sending repeat offenders back out on the street. The appeals court said a judge could not implement 3 Strikes without approval of a jury, and the cases were flawed by the judge having "too much discretion" without review. The current law allows judges to sentence a third felony offender up to TEN TIMES the normal sentence (up to 15 years.) Frankly, ten times sounds excessive, although depending on the crime, 15 years does not. The news articles I've seen do not cite the particular cases, but had the sentences been about ten years, say, the appeals court may not have disagreed with them. You would be very happy to have a criminal from your street away from ten years, I think. And besides, with jury approval 3 Strikes can still happen without any constitutional objection from the higher court. |
|
Help me here, where does it state who profits more? 
